Geostel Vision Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited

[2020] NZCA 379

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA254/2018
 [2020] NZCA 379

BETWEEN	GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED First Appellant PAUL DAYNES AND THE ESTATE OF GORDON ROBERTSON Second Appellant
AND	ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED First Respondent ORAKA GRADES LIMITED Second Respondent MICHAEL WILLIAM SCHWARZ Third Respondent

CA261/2018
BETWEEN	NAPIER TOOL & DIE LIMITED Appellant
AND	ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED First Respondent ORAKA GRADERS LIMITED Second Respondent MICHAEL WILLIAM SCHWARZ Third Respondent

Court:	Courtney, Ellis and Brewer JJ
Counsel:	K T Glover and P R Casey for Appellants in CA254/2018 P G Skelton QC and C D Herbert for Appellants in CA261/2018 B P Henry and A R Kenwright for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	31 August 2020 at 3.30 pm

The respondents are liable on a joint and several basis to pay the appellants costs

and disbursements as set out at [3] and [4]. 

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

1. In the Court’s judgment of 25 June 2020, the Court awarded costs and disbursements to the appellants for a standard appeal on a band A basis.[1]

   [1]Geostel Vision Ltd v Oraka Technologies Ltd [2020] NZCA 256.

2. Memoranda have subsequently been filed by counsel for both groups of appellants (referred to in our judgment as Napier and Geostel, respectively) setting out the amounts claimed.  Relevantly, we note that:

   (a)the category 2 rate in Schedule 2 to the High Court Rules 2016 changed on 1 August 2019, with the result that two different daily rates apply to steps in the appeal based on r 53C of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005; and

   (b)each appellant group has claimed costs for only a half share of:

   (i)the time allocation for each joint memorandum of counsel filed on their behalf; and

   (ii)the time allocation for preparing the case on appeal, and for the associated disbursement.

3. Napier therefore seeks an order for costs and disbursements totalling $21,109.15 made up as follows:

   (a)$5,129 for steps prior to 31 July 2019 (2.3 days at $2,230 per day);

   (b)$12,189 for steps from 1 August 2019 (5.1 days at $2,390 per day); and

   (c)$3,791.15 for disbursements, which figure excludes GST.

4. Geostel seeks an order for costs and disbursements totalling $ 21,274.64, made up as follows:

   (a)$5,129 for steps prior to 31 July 2019 (2.3 days at $2,230 per day);

   (b)$12,189 for steps from 1 August 2019 (5.1 days at $2,390 per day); and

   (c)$3,956.64 for disbursements, which figure excludes GST.

5. Counsel for the respondents does not oppose the costs memoranda.  We are satisfied that the methodology and the amounts claimed are appropriate.  We make orders that the respondents are liable on a joint and several basis to pay to the appellants costs and disbursements in those amounts accordingly.

Solicitors:
Malloy Goodwin Harford, Auckland for Appellant in CA254/2018
Hudson Gavin Martin, Auckland for Appellant in CA261/2018
Shanahans Law Ltd, Auckland for Respondents